On-Topic: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by MikeyLove

Prove it that it is so.

Sorry.

You can't use the old fashioned catholic church approach here.

It is up to the person putting forward the hypothesis to prove that it is so.

So far, there are numerous challenges to the figure quoted...let alone the notion that rampant over reproduction by humans leads to great wealth. One only has to visit countries around the world with high birth rates to knock this pin down.

No. It is up to you now, to prove the figure by laying out the methodology for the calculations in a scientific way.

....and at the end of the day, it is a morally bankrupt view of the world to think that anyone would be convinced that the best reason not to abort would be economics.

Abortion is a subject where those on either side of the argument will not reach any middle ground, unlike the Church's attempts at finding clinical justification for tubal ligation or 'natural' ways of birth control. If you are someone who believes that humanity begins at conception, there will be no way of even reconciling first trimester abortions.

If you are someone who believes that a foetus is not human until the point of unassisted viability outside the womb...then you will never see the side of those who really believe that every sperm (including those spilt by Onan) is sacred.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

No economic argument could ever convince me of the merits of abortion if I thought that every abortion is basically murder.

No economic argument could ever convince me that abortion is bad if I see abortion as a fundamental womens right to decide over their own body a an absolutely necessary tool to overcome (latent) patriarchy. (And at the same time think that a cluster of cells only becomes a human being at a certain later date, which is admittedly rather arbitrary.)

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

Are you kidding me? Over 50% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Because American teenagers aren't taught anything in sex-ed classes but "abstinence" (as if that's an option), they have no clue how to protect themselves and go into it with "I don't need protection, it's not gonna happen on the first time" mentality. Seriously, Jack, defend your anti-woman position all you want, but at least don't go into it from the position that somehow all pregnancies are planned, and then those fickle Jezebels just change their mind and decide to flush it out...

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

There can be no consensus here, and these endless arguments lead nowhere. A religious point of view is unacceptable to me, and my morals are unacceptable to the religious hypocrites (I am sure all of you masturbate), so why keep going?

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Are you kidding me? Over 50% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Because American teenagers aren't taught anything in sex-ed classes but "abstinence" (as if that's an option), they have no clue how to protect themselves and go into it with "I don't need protection, it's not gonna happen on the first time" mentality. Seriously, Jack, defend your anti-woman position all you want, but at least don't go into it from the position that somehow all pregnancies are planned, and then those fickle Jezebels just change their mind and decide to flush it out...

You're telling me that people who have sex don't know where babies come from?

First of all yes, many don't. Second - no, I'm saying that many go into it without suspecting they might end up getting pregnant. Or with the girl thinking the guy is using a condom when he isn't. Or with the guy thinking there's no risk if he shoots outside. Or thinking it just won't happen "this one time". Seriously, do you live under a rock?

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by MikeyLove

We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

You are dodging now. You've been told that it is up to you to prove the hypothesis stated in the article, complete with methodologies for calculating the supposed costs of abortion.

And just bear in mind that according to your logic, every sperm wasted is equal in impact to abortion. The jizz you clean up off your boyfriend, the stuff in the condom or down the throat, either straight or homo is directly responsible for the collapse of civilization.

Except we know that isn't true.

What we do know to be true is that rampant unchecked growth in the human population will be the end of humanity. Period. Full stop. Overpopulation and stripping the planet to serve only one species is unsustainable.

Humans are destined to be replaced and we are likely the only species that is fully cognizant of just what it takes to annihilate our own species utterly.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by MikeyLove

I would encourage them not to change the rules, as they would be violating Free Speech. Killing a Child in the Womb, I would say is on par with a woman killing her children by drowning them in a bathtub. Murder is Murder no matter how you look at it. What is that word when someone tries to scratch a word out because it is offensive to a few? I may be Gay, but I am adamenately Pro-Life all the way. You would want to strip away my opinion just because of the word "Murder"? That would be a bad move. With this kind of action, you would be on par with the stupid crazy Republicans/Tea Party.

Except it is not a child. How many times do I have to tell you pro lifers that there are stages of development in the womb. A fetus/embryo/cluster of cells is not a person and as about as much sentience, personhood and intelligence as a jar of paste. In fact any given animal as more sentience etc then said pre life forms and I dont see pro lifers runnin out to be vegetarians. You think that as soon as conception happens that there is a sentient person in the room with you and that is not the case. Again you pro lifers are basing your ideas on your primative religion instead of science. When in reality your god practiced not even abortion but outright infaticide in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

A cluster of cells is a living organism but it is not an actual sentient life. It is a potential life that the mother can choose to terminate when she pleases before it becomes an actual life because potential and pre life forms do not deserve respect only actual ones do. It is sentience, intellience and personhood that determines what life is and these potential life forms have none of these things and only gain them later in the womb before that they are merely potential lives or pre lives. They are not sentient human lives worthy of respect. Which as I mentioned before any given animal has more sentience, personhood and intelligence then these clusters of cells and I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians. Again personhood and sentience are how we determine life. Until said creature has these things it is not a life and unlike what you pro lifers say a sentient life is not formed at the moment of conception.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by MikeyLove

We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Western civilization by nature declines in population. The reduction of families is not because women are having abortions. It's called family planning. My parents only had two kids. My mom didn't go, "whoops!" and have three abortions. If you want to encourage child raising, then you provide more tax, health, and education incentives to encourage couples to have more children. When the economic recession hit, so did the U.S. birth rate.

Developing and third world countries have higher birth rates because of systemic poverty, a lack of education, and oppressive gender dynamics.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

What of the cost in suffering and botched back alley abortions had they not been legal, or doesn't that count? Along with the human cost physically and emotionally there certainly is a high economic cost.

If abortions were illegal in the states or certain states it wouldn't be the well off young woman who would stuffer the consequence. They would travel to a Country where they would be legal, Daddy would make sure of that if her account couldn't cover the fees. Of course it will be the low income and poor who don't have the resources to do this. They will be birthing babies or going to the local dumpster abortionist risking great mortal or lifetime disability.
No one wants those babies after they are born it seems.

Many of the same people that are against any form of abortion are also against any sort of public aid to adults and children that will require assistance once brought into this world. Once the baby cries care is on on going until death, or does it matter after that? Some people I hear can live well into their 80's or beyond, even from poor neighborhoods.

Mikey Love a good flick to watch on this for several good points, its excellent WW II era "Cider House Rules" from 1999 where the story takes place in a orphanage

It offers several points of view pro and con, but it opens your eyes, however I know some think they talk for God or he to them and knows what is best, yet they haven't a desire to help out with all these people. Either with volunteer work, funds, or education to avoid the mostly preventable situation of a abortion. On this point it matters not if you are female or male.
The church cannot handle the cost of this, and why should it? Oh the Catholic Church come out with some good bullshit how they think Ryans budget plans are barbaric and cruel to the poor and elderly but that and a lit match burn out quickly.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

You conflate human capital with culture, and that's American exceptionalism in a nutshell.

No. American culture has encouraged innovative thinking, free enterprise, democracy, individual responsibility, and unwillingness to accept governmental corruption. Not all cultures ancourage innovation. Many countries tolerate governmental corruption which is destructive of free enterprise and democracy. Many cultures find it hard to accept democracy or to maintain it for long.
Notice that the other WASP countries have similar cultures, economies and political systems: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. It is not a coincidence. Many countries have great masses of "human capital" but remain stagnant third world countries.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

Giving women the option to terminate the pregnancy is not "treating a new human being as property of a woman". What it is doing it allowing a woman the right to decide what her body is to be used for. If a woman chooses to not use her body to sustain the life of a fetus inside her, she has every right to remove that from her body. There is no other instance in which it has been argued that a person sacrifice their bodily autonomy for the life of another is required.

The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

Yep, and they are as misguided as those who say it should not be allowed for a woman to have the right to decide if her body is to be used to sustain the development of a child.

As a human being you must respect human life.

Projecting the qualifier of "human life" onto a zygote or fetus, and then misguidedly protecting that "life" at the expense of an adult woman's bodily autonomy is not "respecting human life".

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Can we at least agree that partial birth or late term abortions should be illegal? These are viable--but inconvenient--babies, half way out, having an instrument shoved into their skulls and their brains sucked out. What is the difference between that and killing the child after it is born?

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

In the 1st world, kids are expensive. Very expensive, and the the costs on raising a child are only going up. I was a preemie, with various defects, so for in order for me to live, my parents had to dish out nearly as much money as our house to keep me alive; including two other kids. That is when parents want to have a kid, that are willing to do whatever they can in being a parent. Now, imagine a mother that doesn't want a kid, that can't afford the costs on raising one. Now imagine them in high school or college after a bad night with their boyfriend, with no job.

For some girls, abortion is the only way to go. Now they could go through the oh-so-pleasant and painless birth process and give the child to out flawless adoption and foster case system, but someone has to pay for that child. That's were we, the tax payers in a time of fiscal hardship ever-nearing the fiscal cliff, come into the picture. Personally, I don't want to pay for a life that probably shouldn't have been born. Call that callous or barbaric or however you define it, but it's better off for everyone that we don't have unnecessary children. It's not good for them, the parents, and the society if not the entire planet as whole. That is of course, different if one who is pro-life supports childcare and services for teenage mothers which is a venture I share, but something tells me that one doesn't. There is as severe lack of family planning these days that's going to bite us in the ass down the road.

Now do I consider abortion murder? Too an extent, yes. I am Buddhist. I do consider life to be paramount. However, those are my beliefs. Not everyone is going to share my beliefs. My beliefs should also never be foisted on someone else. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However, since I assume that everyone posting on this thread is homosexual, I don't think that it'll ever be your problem. So, why are you trying to get involved into an issue that doesn't affect you?

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

If abortion is outlawed you can be that birth control is next. And the type of court that would outlaw abortion is not going to go easy on the glbt community. Remember those sodomy laws? Still on the books in some states and ready to go back in play with the right supreme court.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by jdbadboy

If abortion is outlawed you can be that birth control is next. And the type of court that would outlaw abortion is not going to go easy on the glbt community. Remember those sodomy laws? Still on the books in some states and ready to go back in play with the right supreme court.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Can we stick to good sense and the use of reason?

And maybe get back to the topic -- the alleged loss to the economy of potential people who never came to be?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

What you said makes no sense. Toenail fungus or a tumor are not the beginning parts of a new human life.

Sperm and eggs too are the beginning parts of human life but they are not senient life forms. So too are fertilized eggs, fetuses, embryos, clusters of cells not lives either are they are the early beginnings of life aka pre life forms but are not sentient, intelligent creatures with personhood and thus do not deserve respect. Funny thing pro lifers ignore my point that any given animal has more sentience, intelligence and personhood then these pre life forms and I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

So you are equating sodomy with baby killing?

Fetus/embryos/clusters of cells are not babies. As much as you try to twist science to say that a baby is immediately created when sperm hits eggs your unscientific nonsense holds no water.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Lestatnj

What business is it of any man to attempt to put his beliefs onto any woman when it comes to abortion, unless he's the impregnator, & even then, it's the woman's choice.

I find it laughable & pathetic that the 3 "antis" here are:

The OP, who seemingly has outdated catholic opinions on everything, even being gay.

Springer, who will take any position as long as it's deemed anti Obama

Bennie, who makes no sense at any time.

Gentleman, you're supposedly gay, mind your business.

To me this issue is less about "choice" actually than "what defines the start and end of life." And I'm satisfied that the definition revolves around the current capability to independently sustain consciousness.

I'm glad you do recognize a theoretical role for the "impregnator" aka "fatherů" but I'd go further and give legal protection to that role.

It's every man's right to not consent to sexual activity with a woman, and one of his conditions of informed and freely-given consent may be that the woman waives any right to the sole decision about terminating a pregnancy unless her health is at stake. If there is good evidence that without coercion or pressure, the couple discussed it openly and clearly agreed what course of action they would take if a pregnancy occurred, I would feel no qualms about making her go through with it.

For some people it is clearly not morally acceptable to abort a zygote, and those people are free to choose a partner who agrees with them. No general law should stop them. However if they freely choose and agree that the zygote will not be aborted barring any health crisis, I think the law should enforce that agreement, because changing their mind on a whim actually invalidates the consent for the sexual activity in the first place.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Absurdity. You can't have anyone else making decisions about that. Such "agreements" can be abused in thousands of ways.

You're missing the point that no one else is making a decision about that. If two people freely agree that it is a joint decision, and the decision is "no," then that is the decision. And, in most cases, a binding agreement upon which someone may rely as a precondition for being willing to part with sperm.

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

You can always force someone into "willingly" entering such an agreement. You can make it an unofficial requirement for a job for example. Or abuse some position of dominance you have over the girl. This is absolutely not ok.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

the whole discussion reminds me of this poster...

it says "this (disabled) person costs in his life 60 000 Reichsmark (the german currency in this time)".

the economic whealth was the legitimation for the nazis to "euthanize" (what a f*cked up word...) disabled people, meaning to break human rights.

just to show the supporters of this study where the end of this thinking happens when you are consequently thinking through (when we can take the human right cause of economics from this group, than why not from that group, too? etc)

can't believe you were once just like anyone else
then you grew and became like the devil himself

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by bankside

To me this issue is less about "choice" actually than "what defines the start and end of life." And I'm satisfied that the definition revolves around the current capability to independently sustain consciousness.

I'm glad you do recognize a theoretical role for the "impregnator" aka "father…" but I'd go further and give legal protection to that role.

It's every man's right to not consent to sexual activity with a woman, and one of his conditions of informed and freely-given consent may be that the woman waives any right to the sole decision about terminating a pregnancy unless her health is at stake. If there is good evidence that without coercion or pressure, the couple discussed it openly and clearly agreed what course of action they would take if a pregnancy occurred, I would feel no qualms about making her go through with it.

For some people it is clearly not morally acceptable to abort a zygote, and those people are free to choose a partner who agrees with them. No general law should stop them. However if they freely choose and agree that the zygote will not be aborted barring any health crisis, I think the law should enforce that agreement, because changing their mind on a whim actually invalidates the consent for the sexual activity in the first place.

That's great in principle, but I can't imagine that a couple in the heat of passion, who -- as just occurred last weekend on the beach near where I was camping -- just "grab and go" are going to stop and sign an agreement.

So you're right it would have to be written into law, so it's the default position.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Absurdity. You can't have anyone else making decisions about that. Such "agreements" can be abused in thousands of ways.

All agreements can be abused, but we still grope toward making good ones.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

That's great in principle, but I can't imagine that a couple in the heat of passion, who -- as just occurred last weekend on the beach near where I was camping -- just "grab and go" are going to stop and sign an agreement.

So you're right it would have to be written into law, so it's the default position.

I don't think it should ever be the default position to prevent abortion due to lack of paternal consent. It should be something only that two people can elect to prohibit based on their mutual conviction. The rationale I describe cannot apply to modern "drive-through sexuality:" in no sense is that indicative of a person who is serious about the possibility of raising a child.

For those people who do intend their sexuality to be irrevocably linked to the responsibilities of parenthood, they should be able to agree not to allow discretionary abortion if that is their free choice. Once made however, that's the bottom line.